iMacZealot
Sep 17, 11:54 PM
There are ways of walking on the moon. Doesnt mean its particularly consumer-friendly.
I brought up using a phone internationally because of the technical compatibility of using GSM over CDMA. price is irrelevant. the fact that "some cdma phones are gsm compatible" is proof that CDMA has very limited use worldwide.
so basically. IF your CDMA carrier has a phone that you like AND is GSM compatible, you can take it and roam.
or. you can accept that while it may be technically superior (i said MAY. speed isnt everything) CDMA is a very tiny pocket of the mobile market.
The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.
I brought up using a phone internationally because of the technical compatibility of using GSM over CDMA. price is irrelevant. the fact that "some cdma phones are gsm compatible" is proof that CDMA has very limited use worldwide.
so basically. IF your CDMA carrier has a phone that you like AND is GSM compatible, you can take it and roam.
or. you can accept that while it may be technically superior (i said MAY. speed isnt everything) CDMA is a very tiny pocket of the mobile market.
The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.
haruhiko
Apr 28, 11:15 PM
I still don't understand why nobody has managed to make a viable alternative to Microsoft Office, esp. Microsoft Excel. Apple's iWork is fine, but clearly not enough and of course there is no Windows version. Google is too obsessed with the cloud and ad thing and didn't make Google Docs a local app for Windows / Mac / Smartphones with Dropbox like cloud capabilities. :(
So Microsoft can continue to be fed with its Windows / Office monopolies for the foreseeable future.
So Microsoft can continue to be fed with its Windows / Office monopolies for the foreseeable future.
aloshka
Mar 29, 01:09 PM
Looking at the figures right now anyone can easily see that iOS is not the dominating platform. Not even the second most popular (which is Symbian), but does anyone really care ?. Same case with the Macs and Mac OS X.
I would really like to see Microsoft step up the game because in the end, we customers are the ones receiving most benefit.
I had been a loyal Windows user (up to Windows 7) when I switched to Mac last year. My take is that Windows and its creators are not technically inferior to Mac OS and Apple, but their corporate philosophy has never sported the acumen and, guess what, common sense with which Steve Jobs makes the his products so pleasant to use and look at.
I'm with you 100%, I just wish Apple would focus better on development languages, frameworks & environments. XCode4 is wonderful, but objective-c and the apple SDK libraries suck. Microsoft really wins with .NET where things are just logically placed and powerful. Apple SDK, however, you have some libraries that are in C, you have some that are in Objective-C, you have some that use a mixture of both. It feels like they glued crap together last minute, but never cleaned it up. This is actually why a lot of powerful software for the MAC is unavailable outside of already C-compiled programs like photoshop, etc. Take for instance Quicken, no good Mac alternative period. When I decided to develop it myself and make millions (joke), I realized that it would take me twice as long to develop a decent mac application because I had to design around memory management, etc that you simply don't worry about in .NET. Databases, etc, PIA. Yes, I understand it requires developers to think ahead, but it also means decent software for the mac requires teams on top of teams to develop thus software still sucks on the MAC outside of what Apple had their 10-man teams build in over a year (ie iWork, etc)
I would really like to see Microsoft step up the game because in the end, we customers are the ones receiving most benefit.
I had been a loyal Windows user (up to Windows 7) when I switched to Mac last year. My take is that Windows and its creators are not technically inferior to Mac OS and Apple, but their corporate philosophy has never sported the acumen and, guess what, common sense with which Steve Jobs makes the his products so pleasant to use and look at.
I'm with you 100%, I just wish Apple would focus better on development languages, frameworks & environments. XCode4 is wonderful, but objective-c and the apple SDK libraries suck. Microsoft really wins with .NET where things are just logically placed and powerful. Apple SDK, however, you have some libraries that are in C, you have some that are in Objective-C, you have some that use a mixture of both. It feels like they glued crap together last minute, but never cleaned it up. This is actually why a lot of powerful software for the MAC is unavailable outside of already C-compiled programs like photoshop, etc. Take for instance Quicken, no good Mac alternative period. When I decided to develop it myself and make millions (joke), I realized that it would take me twice as long to develop a decent mac application because I had to design around memory management, etc that you simply don't worry about in .NET. Databases, etc, PIA. Yes, I understand it requires developers to think ahead, but it also means decent software for the mac requires teams on top of teams to develop thus software still sucks on the MAC outside of what Apple had their 10-man teams build in over a year (ie iWork, etc)
mdriftmeyer
Apr 19, 06:52 AM
Strongly? I mean, ``We're talkin' fierce! Here us Roarrrr!''
sfh
Mar 23, 05:06 PM
There are plenty of websites that do the same thing so therefore they need to petition the websites to censor their sites if they are going to ask apple to censor their app store.
Full of Win
Apr 25, 04:10 PM
Single card? Do you even know what SLI is? Did you even read the article? :rolleyes:
I'm still waiting.
Reading is so fundamental. It said "Quad-SLI-capable". Where in the article did it say it was in an SLI configuration?
I'm still waiting.
Reading is so fundamental. It said "Quad-SLI-capable". Where in the article did it say it was in an SLI configuration?
stockscalper
Mar 23, 04:39 PM
The whole frickin country is going up in flames and all these clowns can do is pass taxes on cigars, ban apps from the App Store and look for another war to get into.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 01:14 PM
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
So did you miss the USB to PS2 adapters I posted? :rolleyes:
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection. Again, any single drive enclosure doesn't need USB 3 and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the future, a couple of years down the road there will be affordable external SSD's and you will have an SSD in your machine and the only bottleneck is going to be your connector.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other. Wow, you are using an Apple adapter for price comparisons. :rolleyes:
Apple sells mini-display port to HDMI adapters for $30 when you can buy them for $5. Find a better example.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?Uhh, I'm not? USB 3 has overhead and I've yet to see it actually go its maximum, when have you ever seen USB 2 reach 480Mbps?
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive. You may have never used a USB thumb drive? L.o.l.
USB 2 is TERRIBLE at high speed data transfer, 'standard' or not. A PS2 port could still be standard for all I care.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3. The copper implementation is limited only by the cable and not the port.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
I never said it would replace USB. I said they compliment each other. I said USB 3 is hardly needed as all of the heavy lifting is done through Thunderbolt then you leave the low bandwidth peripherals (that USB 2.0 was capable of handling) to USB 3.0.
Is it "difficult" to carry an adaptor? Of course not (weight and size wise).
But in real life, you run into situations where you don't have it on hand. Like the noon conference at my residency program where we had problems with the laptop on which an attending was to give a presentation. One of the other residents had a MBP and volunteered its use, but...no DP adaptor to connect to the projector. I can only imagine how many times that scenario must occur each day at businesses, etc.
It's a poor solution compared to having USB 3 built in.
In real life you should carry around your laptop in a bag or sleeve that has everything you need in it. USB 3 is not a necessity and the majority of devices will continue to be USB 2.0 compatible as well before 3.0 takes off and Thunderbolt steals all of the high bandwidth peripherals.
So did you miss the USB to PS2 adapters I posted? :rolleyes:
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection. Again, any single drive enclosure doesn't need USB 3 and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the future, a couple of years down the road there will be affordable external SSD's and you will have an SSD in your machine and the only bottleneck is going to be your connector.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other. Wow, you are using an Apple adapter for price comparisons. :rolleyes:
Apple sells mini-display port to HDMI adapters for $30 when you can buy them for $5. Find a better example.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?Uhh, I'm not? USB 3 has overhead and I've yet to see it actually go its maximum, when have you ever seen USB 2 reach 480Mbps?
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive. You may have never used a USB thumb drive? L.o.l.
USB 2 is TERRIBLE at high speed data transfer, 'standard' or not. A PS2 port could still be standard for all I care.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3. The copper implementation is limited only by the cable and not the port.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
I never said it would replace USB. I said they compliment each other. I said USB 3 is hardly needed as all of the heavy lifting is done through Thunderbolt then you leave the low bandwidth peripherals (that USB 2.0 was capable of handling) to USB 3.0.
Is it "difficult" to carry an adaptor? Of course not (weight and size wise).
But in real life, you run into situations where you don't have it on hand. Like the noon conference at my residency program where we had problems with the laptop on which an attending was to give a presentation. One of the other residents had a MBP and volunteered its use, but...no DP adaptor to connect to the projector. I can only imagine how many times that scenario must occur each day at businesses, etc.
It's a poor solution compared to having USB 3 built in.
In real life you should carry around your laptop in a bag or sleeve that has everything you need in it. USB 3 is not a necessity and the majority of devices will continue to be USB 2.0 compatible as well before 3.0 takes off and Thunderbolt steals all of the high bandwidth peripherals.
epitaphic
Sep 9, 08:56 AM
This is interesting. So the frequency difference of 2.16 to 2.66 is 23% yet the MacPro is only 20-30% faster? So clock for clock, the iMac would be between 7% slower and 3% FASTER than the MacPro!
There is no chance in hell there'll be a Conroe system for some time. This is also the reason the Mac Pros are all quads, a duo would be just as fast for all but the 0.001% of people that do stuff that fully utilizes the quad.
There is no chance in hell there'll be a Conroe system for some time. This is also the reason the Mac Pros are all quads, a duo would be just as fast for all but the 0.001% of people that do stuff that fully utilizes the quad.
BRLawyer
Apr 28, 03:53 PM
Just because Apple's profit was higher doesn't dispel the end for Microsoft or Google. Every company in American except one made less profit that Apple, and trust me, they aren't all "doomed or Dead"....
Grow up Mr. Lawyer!
You are probably new here, right? :rolleyes:
Grow up Mr. Lawyer!
You are probably new here, right? :rolleyes:
Detrius
Mar 16, 10:31 AM
I can just imagine that future Apple operating systems might very well include native protection that wold continue to thwart people wanting to sell anti-malware for Apple OS.
OS X Server ships with clamav for filtering viruses through the email server. Lion merges client and server. Therefore, there will be an antivirus program shipping with 10.7.
OS X Server ships with clamav for filtering viruses through the email server. Lion merges client and server. Therefore, there will be an antivirus program shipping with 10.7.
CQd44
Apr 30, 06:24 PM
I think it will be just as big as USB2 was. Why wouldn't it? I would be surprised if all the PC vendors shipped machines with TB, if history is any indication. Far more Windows PC's were shipped with USB2 than FW. That may change this time around with TB but I doubt it.
My desktop has eSATA and USB 2 built into the case (of course this requires some plugging in on the motherboard itself...) and the motherboard supports firewire.
I think what will probably happen is just switching to USB3 and TB. Seems easiest and the most backward-compatible.
I can't wait to get a USB3 flash drive so my laptop can finally put its USB3 to use :)
My desktop has eSATA and USB 2 built into the case (of course this requires some plugging in on the motherboard itself...) and the motherboard supports firewire.
I think what will probably happen is just switching to USB3 and TB. Seems easiest and the most backward-compatible.
I can't wait to get a USB3 flash drive so my laptop can finally put its USB3 to use :)
dakwar
Apr 19, 01:32 PM
lol yep. there's some evidence of it below :p
I should be more obvious with my sarcasms. People take written ***** too seriously.
I should be more obvious with my sarcasms. People take written ***** too seriously.
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:14 PM
You really think so? Three programs between these two development teams. Facebook and then these two. Yeah I see a huge tide turning right now. Please.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.
xenotaku
Sep 14, 07:05 AM
the iPhone is going to be a useless product unless they release it in big enough sizes to replace my iPod. It's like carrying two ipods around. I already have a 60 gig...why would I spend the extra money to buy an expensive phone that only holds 5 gigs or something? It's just a dumb idea, unless they release major sizes that can replace the big ipods. I don't know why everyone is drooling over this thing.
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:55 AM
That statement is pure speculation and I have not seen that anywhere *official*. Until it actually happens, it hasn't happened.
It came directly from VZW executives.
Here is an article from Business Week.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-01/verizon-wireless-will-end-unlimited-data-plans-for-iphone.html
First two paragraphs.
It will be there for a while. However, everyone knows what Verizon does best and that is being the most expensive and greedy. They will not allow the unlimited data to continue when no other carrier readily makes it available.
It came directly from VZW executives.
Here is an article from Business Week.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-01/verizon-wireless-will-end-unlimited-data-plans-for-iphone.html
First two paragraphs.
It will be there for a while. However, everyone knows what Verizon does best and that is being the most expensive and greedy. They will not allow the unlimited data to continue when no other carrier readily makes it available.
HecubusPro
Aug 31, 06:59 PM
**Edit, IMO i think its silly because whos gonna pay $14.99 for a movie on a tiny screen, and if they make it to watch on your computer then its just going to take hours and hours to download if you have a slow broadband connection
$14.99 for new movies, but $9.99 for older films supposedly.
Some movies aren't much longer than hour long TV shows, and people have been downloading those regularly from iTunes. And like I said, there are a lot of people out there already downloading movies from the internet. My guess is there are also a lot of people who would love to have an easy option to get their movies online, but aren't tech savvy enough to know what bit-torrent is, or where to find illegal torrent sites, etc. Those types of people would probably jump all over an easy to access and use movie downlaod site. iTunes already has a great reputation, so consumer comfort is high with Apple in that regard.
Honestly though, it remains be seen until people are able to use the new service, but I have a feeling it will do quite well, even if it is geared for a small screen (with the option to watch fullscreen in iTunes on your computer.) Who knows though? The PSP UMD movie format is dead. But I think that's due to Sony's poor marketing and DVD comparable cost of UMD movies than anything else.
And yes, go ahead and sell your PSP. You'll feel better. I did, and I do. :)
$14.99 for new movies, but $9.99 for older films supposedly.
Some movies aren't much longer than hour long TV shows, and people have been downloading those regularly from iTunes. And like I said, there are a lot of people out there already downloading movies from the internet. My guess is there are also a lot of people who would love to have an easy option to get their movies online, but aren't tech savvy enough to know what bit-torrent is, or where to find illegal torrent sites, etc. Those types of people would probably jump all over an easy to access and use movie downlaod site. iTunes already has a great reputation, so consumer comfort is high with Apple in that regard.
Honestly though, it remains be seen until people are able to use the new service, but I have a feeling it will do quite well, even if it is geared for a small screen (with the option to watch fullscreen in iTunes on your computer.) Who knows though? The PSP UMD movie format is dead. But I think that's due to Sony's poor marketing and DVD comparable cost of UMD movies than anything else.
And yes, go ahead and sell your PSP. You'll feel better. I did, and I do. :)
donbadman
Sep 26, 06:58 AM
who the hell are cingular? what about orange t-mobile, vodaphone or o2? I guess it's US only again...
Tampa Tom
Mar 30, 01:38 PM
How cunning. Hire a linguist.
harry20larry
Apr 11, 04:21 AM
Been wanting this for a while. I have a windows PC just doing nothing, if I can turn it into an Airport Express like device, can have music going throughout the house.
dondark
Sep 14, 01:49 AM
I hope iPhone will have a good sync with the Mac. If i am only looking for a pretty cell phone, there are a lot in the japanese market.
Selax77
Sep 5, 03:09 PM
anyone think well see the 6g ipod or the real ipod video
rhett7660
Nov 13, 05:37 PM
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.
It just says they are jumping ship from the iPhone... For some reason, 3 people jumping ship don't really stir the pot for me. For some reason I have a feeling there will be many behind them to take their place.
It just says they are jumping ship from the iPhone... For some reason, 3 people jumping ship don't really stir the pot for me. For some reason I have a feeling there will be many behind them to take their place.
wildmac
Sep 10, 12:05 PM
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
But that underwhelming feeling can be a good feeling. You know you are working on the latest hardware.
I expect to see a speed-bump in the next 5-6 months for the MacPro, but nothing else.
But that underwhelming feeling can be a good feeling. You know you are working on the latest hardware.
I expect to see a speed-bump in the next 5-6 months for the MacPro, but nothing else.